Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Type B packages”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

SALT3-NIR: Taking the Open-source Type Ia Supernova Model to Longer Wavelengths for Next-generation Cosmological Measurements

Abstract A large fraction of Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) observations over the next decade will be in the near-infrared (NIR), at wavelengths beyond the reach of the current standard light-curve model for SN Ia cosmology, SALT3 (∼2800–8700 Å central filter wavelength). To harness this new SN Ia sample and reduce future light-curve standardization systematic uncertainties, we train SALT3 at NIR wavelengths (SALT3-NIR) up to 2 μ m with the open-source model-training software SALTshaker , which can easily accommodate future observations. Using simulated data, we show that the training process constrains the NIR model to ∼2%–3% across the phase range (−20 to 50 days). We find that Hubble residual (HR) scatter is smaller using the NIR alone or optical+NIR compared to optical alone, by up to ∼30% depending on filter choice (95% confidence). There is significant correlation between NIR light-curve stretch measurements and luminosity, with stretch and color corrections often improving HR scatter by up to ∼20%. For SN Ia observations expected from the Roman Space Telescope, SALT3-NIR increases the amount of usable data in the SALT framework by ∼20% at redshift z ≲ 0.4 and by ∼50% at z ≲ 0.15. The SALT3-NIR model is part of the open-source SNCosmo and SNANA SN Ia cosmology packages.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS2007

Detecting Life and Biology-Related Parameters on Mars

An integrated, miniaturized, low-power instrument capable of the detection and early characterization of microbial life in the soil of Mars is proposed. Based on the detection apd monitoring of on-going metabolism as being the surest evidence for extant life, the experiments will probe for chirality in metabolism, for circadian rhythm, and for photosynthesis. However, the instrument package will also be able to detect biosignatures and a variety of other physical and chemical parameters of the Martian surface that have significance for life. These include the presence and the physical state of water, the existence of an oxidant, the pH and the penetrability of the soil. Using the legacy of the 1976 Viking Labeled Release (LR) life detection experiment in conjunction with state-of-the-art laser diode spectral analysis, the instrument can be flown stand-alone, with or without a rover, or as part of an MSL-type mission. Sterility for experiment integrity and for planetary protection is provided.

Levin, Gilbet V.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Platform evolution studies

The polar orbiting platform (POP), being developed by the Work Package 3 (WP3) Project at the Goddard Space Flight Center, will play a key role in the NASA Leadership Initiative, Mission to Planet Earth (MPE). It becomes, with the addition of payloads, an Earth observation satellite observatory. Mission to Planet Earth also has geostationary platforms (GEOP) as part of its global observational system. A study was begun in March 1988 to assess the applicability of the POP orbital replacement units (ORUs) for a geostationary Earth observing mission. Two test cases, representative of MPE payloads, were studied. Case A was used to emphasize the GEOP configuration and design; it used a Titan/Centaur to achieve orbit. Case B, considered to be much further in the future, included some assembly at the Space Station Freedom manned base and use of an orbital transfer vehicle to achieve orbit; requirements on the manned base to support such a mission were emphasized. The study found the POP systems more than adequate to meet GEOP requirements. Two types of changes were required for the POP ORUs: (1) modification to use only one surface for heat rejection; for the battery ORU, this meant 'opening up' the ORU to retain the radiator area with a corresponding decrease in depth; and (2) deletion of equipment not needed. The Case A configuration was shown to be within the planned capability of the Titan IV/Centaur. Assembly requirements were included for the Case B configuration, which is driven by the large microwave antennas of two of the payloads. The final review was April 19, 1989.

Walton, Barbara A.↗
NASA NTRS1991

Survival of epiphytic bacteria from seed stored on the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF)

This study was designed to determine the survival of microorganisms exposed to the relatively harsh conditions found in low Earth orbit (LEO). Seed of corn, sunflower, canteloupe, zucchini, bean, pea, and pumpkin cultivars were packaged in two 18 x 2.5 cm aluminum tubes; wall thickness for each tube was 1.33 mm. One seed tube was attacked to payload M0006, tray C-2; a second tube was stored at room temperature in a lab on Earth. Five lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosimetry wafers (TLD-100 wafers) were placed in each aluminum tube. The total mean dosages for flight and ground-control TLD wafers were 210.0 and 0.9 rads, respectively. Seeds were washed for 2 hrs in a phosphate buffered saline solution. Bacteria were isolated by plating samples of the seed-washings onto dilute tryptic soy agar. Pure isolates of morphologically distinct bacteria were obtained by standard microbiological procedures. Bacteria were grouped according to colony-type and preliminary identification was completed using a fatty-acid analysis system. Bacillus spp. were the primary microoganisms that survived on seed during the experiment. Bacterial diversity and relative abundance were similar for the ground flight seed. Bacillus subtilus, B. pumilus, B. licheniformis, B. polymyxa, B. megaterium, and B. pabuli were isolated most frequently. Members of the genera Kurthia, Listeria, Micrococcus, and Arthrobacter were also isolated from flight and ground control seed. Results support the hypothesis that terrestrial microorganisms can survive long periods of time in the relatively harsh LEO environment.

Schuerger, Andrew C.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Practical application of power conditioning to electric propulsion for passenger vehicles

A functional model 15 HP, 120 volt, 4-pole, 7600 r.p.m. samarium-cobalt permanent magnet type brushless dc motor-transistorized power conditioner unit was designed, fabricated and tested for specific use in propulsion of electric passenger vehicles. This new brushless motor system, including its power conditioner package, has a number of important advantages over existing systems such as reduced weight and volume, higher reliability, and potential for improvements in efficiencies. These advantages are discussed in this paper in light of the substantial test data collected during experimentation with the newly developed conditioner motor propulsion system. Details of the power conditioner design philosophy and particulars are given in the paper. Also, described here are the low level electronic design and operation in relation to the remainder of the system.

Demerdash, N. A.↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
NASA NTRS2019

Ozonesonde Quality Assurance: JOSIE-SHADOZ (2017) and SHALLOTS (2018)

Ozonesonde data constitute a mainstay of satellite calibration and are used for climatologies and analysis of trends, especially in the lower stratosphere where satellites are most uncertain. The electrochemical-concentration cell (ECC) ozonesonde has been deployed at ~100 stations worldwide since the 1960s, with changes over time in manufacture and procedures, including details of the cell chemical solution and data processing. As a consequence, there are biases among different stations and discontinuities in profile timeseries from individual site records. Since 1996 the Jülich [Germany] Ozone Sonde Intercomparison Experiment (JOSIE) has periodically tested ozonesondes in a simulation chamber designated the World Calibration Centre for Ozonesondes by WMO. In October- November 2017 a JOSIE campaign evaluated the sondes and procedures used in SHADOZ (Southern Hemisphere Additional Ozonesondes), a 14-station tropical and subtropical network. A distinctive feature of the 2017 JOSIE was that the tests were conducted by operators from eight SHADOZ stations; Nairobi, Natal, Irene, Costa Rica, Paramaribo, Reunion, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur. Experimental protocols and preliminary results for the SHADOZ sonde configurations, which represent most of those in use today, are described. SHADOZ stations that follow WMO-recommended protocols record total ozone within 3% of the JOSIE reference instrument. Instrument biases noted in prior JOSIE and field tests like BESOS (2004) were noted in JOSIE-2017, with maximum effect in the stratosphere. In June 2018 we organized a series of dual launches during the OWLETS II campaign in the Maryland and Chesapeake Bay area (SHALLOTS = SHADOZ-OWLETS ParaLLel Ozonesonde Test Study). Instrument and solution types were varied as in JOSIE-2017 and three radiosonde-ozonesonde variants were tested. An example of a parallel sampling in SHALLOTS, from a Greenbelt EnSCI-iMet sonde combination flown with the Wallops SPCLMS package, is illustrated in the Figure. The result was a range of biases but in general the instrument combination (EnSCI-iMet) deployed at 11 SHADOZ stations recorded ~5-10% less ozone in the stratosphere than the SPC ECC sonde flown with a Vaisala or LMS system. These 2017 and 2018 results and prior JOSIEs demonstrate that regular testing is essential to maintain best practices in ozonesonde operations and to ensure high-quality data for the ozone assessment communities.

Quality assurance↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Unsaturated and Saturated Hydraulic Parameters of Soils at the East River Watershed, Colorado Calculated using the Pedotransfer Function Method.

The purpose of the data package is to present the results of calculations of the following unsaturated-saturated hydraulic parameters of soils of the East River Watershed, Colorado: fully saturated water content (Qs), residual saturation (Qr), van genuchten parameters alpha and n, field capacity (FC), and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks). Calculations were conducted for the following soil texture types: sandy_loam, loam, silty_clay_loam, clay_loam, silt loam; the particle size distribution included the percentage of sand, silt, clay, and the bulk density (BD) of soils. Calculations were conducted for the following areas- Lower_Subalpine (6 samples),- Lower_Montane_lower_hillslope (7 samples),- Floodplain_at_base_of_lower_montane_hillslope, (11 samples),- PLM-0 (10 samples),- PLM-1 (10 samples), and - PLM-3 (13 samples)Calculations were conducted using the Pedotransfer Function Method developed by Tóth et al. (2014) with the application of the code ”euptf” in Rstudio. The data are being summarized in the Excel file ”Unsaturated_Saturated_Hydraulic_Parameters_PTF_calculated_EASt_EIver.xls" including two worksheets:“full_data_EAST_RIVER” which includes (a) the input data used for calculations, the soil texture triangle, and the plots of the water retention curves and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity for several types of soil texture, and (b) the summary table with the averaged parameters for each area. The the texture triangle was plotted using the Rstudio "soiltexture." Microsoft Excel software is required to open the Excel file. The metadata and a list of references to the Rstudio libraries used for calculations and data visualization are giving in the Word Readme file.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1976

Ames collaborative study of cosmic ray neutrons

The results of a collaborative study to define both the neutron flux and the spectrum more precisely and to develop a dosimetry package that can be flown quickly to altitude for solar flare events are described. Instrumentation and analysis techniques were used which were developed to measure accelerator-produced radiation. The instruments were flown in the Ames Research Center high altitude aircraft. Neutron instrumentation consisted of Bonner spheres with both active and passive detector elements, threshold detectors of both prompt-counter and activation-element types, a liquid scintillation spectrometer based on pulse-shape discrimination, and a moderated BF3 counter neutron monitor. In addition, charged particles were measured with a Reuter-Stokes ionization chamber system and dose equivalent with another instrument. Preliminary results from the first series of flights at 12.5 km (41,000 ft) are presented, including estimates of total neutron flux intensity and spectral shape and of the variation of intensity with altitude and geomagnetic latitude.

Hewitt, J. E.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Quantitative characterization of spatial distribution of particles in materials: Application to materials processing

Most engineering materials contain second phase particles or fibers which serve to reinforce the matrix phase. The effect of reinforcements on material properties is usually analyzed in terms of the average volume fraction and spacing of reinforcements, quantities which are global microstructural characteristics. However, material properties can also depend on local microstructural characteristics; for example, on how uniformly the reinforcing phase is distributed in the material. The analysis method will then be applied to a materials processing problem to discover how processing parameters can be selected to maximize redistribution of the reinforcing phase during processing. Several mathematical analysis methods could be adapted to the problem of characterizing the distribution of particles in materials. A tessellation-based method was selected. In the first phase of the investigation, a software package was written to automate the analysis. Typical results are shown. The analysis technique allows the degree to which particles are clustered together, the size and spacing of particle clusters, and the particle density in clusters to be found. The analysis methods were applied to computer-generated distributions and to a few real particle-containing materials. Methods for analyzing a nonuniform particle distribution in a material can be applied to two broad classes of materials science problems: understanding how the resulting particle distribution affects properties. The analysis method described is applied to a materials processing problem: how to select extrusion conditions to maximize the redistribution of reinforcing particles that are initially nonuniformly distributed. In addition, the tessellation-based method to analyze star distributions in spiral galaxies was adapted, illustrating the diverse types of problems to which the analysis method can be applied.

Parse, J. B.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Photometric Modeling of a Cometary Nucleus: Taking Hapke Modeling to the Limit

In the past two decades, photometric models developed by Bruce Hapke have been fit to a wide range of bodies in the Solar System: The Moon, Mercury, several asteroids, and many icy and rocky satellites. These models have enabled comparative descriptions of the physical attributes of planetary surfaces, including macroscopic roughness, particle size and size-distribution, the single scattering albedo, and the compaction state of the optically active portion of the regolith. One challenging type of body to observe and model, a cometary nucleus, awaited the first space based mission to obtain images unobscured by coma. The NASA-JPL Deep Space 1 Mission (DS1) encountered the short-period Jupiter-family comet 19/P Borrelly on September 22, 2001, about 8 days after perihelion. Prior to its closest approach of 2171 km, the remote-sensing package on the spacecraft obtained 25 CCD images of the comet, representing the first closeup, unobscured view of a comet's nucleus. At closest approach, corresponding to a resolution of 47 meters per pixel, the intensity of the coma was less than 1% of that of the nucleus. An unprecedented range of high solar phase angles (52-89 degrees), viewing geometries that are in general attainable only when a comet is active, enabled the first quantitative and disk-resolved modeling of surface photometric physical parameters.

Buratti, B. J.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Deep Internal Structure of Mars and the Geophysical Package of Netlander

Our present understanding of the interior structure of Mars is mostly based on the interpretation of gravity and rotation data, the chemistry of the SNC (shergottites, nakhlites, chassignites) meteoroids, and a comparison with the much better-known interior structure of the Earth. However geophysical information from previous missions have been insufficient to determine the deep internal structure of the planet. Therefore the state and size of the core and the depth and type of mantle discontinuities are unknown. Most previous seismic experiments have indeed failed, either due to a launch failure (as for the Optimism seismometer onboard the small surface stations of Mars 96) or after failure on Mars (as for the Viking 1 seismometer). The remaining Viking 2 seismometer did not produce a convincing marsquake detection, basically due to too strong wind sensitivity and too low resolution in the teleseismic frequency band. After almost a decade of continuous activity and proposals, the first network mission to Mars, NetLander (NL), is expected to be launched between 2005 and 2007. One of the main scientific objectives of this four-lander network mission will be the determination of the internal structure of the planet using a geophysical package. This package will have a seismometer, a magnetometer, and a geodetic experiment, allowing a complementary approach that will yield many new constraints on the mineralogy and temperature of the mantle and core of the planet.

Lognonne, P.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Manuscript Workflows from and Processed Organic Matter Composition of Experimentally Burned Open Air and Muffle Furnace Vegetation Chars across Differing Burn Severity and Feedstock Types from Pacific Northwest, USA (v3)

This dataset includes processed organic matter chemistry data from an experimental study designed to compare how the chemical composition of organic matter changes across different burn conditions and vegetation materials representative of major land cover types of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Chars were created in a closed muffle furnace or on an open burn table from four different feedstock species representing vegetation commonly impacted by fire regimes across the Pacific Northwest, USA. Source data and associated metadata (including methods and geospatial information) can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1894135 (Grieger et al. 2022). This dataset provides processing scripts and processed data for both solid and dissolved phase organic matter characterization data from experimentally generated chars. These processed data can be used to compare how different burn conditions may influence resultant organic matter chemistry and help further our understanding of potential biogeochemical impacts on river corridors post-fire. The processed data were subsequently analyzed; and the results and ecological implications of the findings were published in peer-reviewed manuscripts. The scripts and workflows used to develop the manuscripts are also included in this data package.This data package was originally published June 2024. It was updated September 2024 (new and modified files) and in January 2025 (modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details.This dataset is comprised of one data package readme, one data dictionary (dd), one file level metadata (flmd), and folders containing (A) processed data; (B) general processing scripts; and (C) additional folders with specific manuscript analysis scripts and processed data. Step-by-step instructions to assist the user in recreating the workflow used to generate the results in the manuscripts is also provided. The processed data folder includes (1) a folder of processed Parallel Factor Analysis (PARAFAC) and spectra indices outputs from excitation emissions matrix (EEM) fluorescence and absorbance data; (2) a folder of processed solid state carbon-13 (13-C NMR) integrals; (3) folder of high resolution characterization of organic matter via 21 Tesla Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) generated through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory) processed data outputs from Formultitude (https://github.com/PNNL-Comp-Mass-Spec/Formultitude), blank corrections and data aggregation, and calculated molecular indices. All files are .pdf, .csv, .html, .Rmd, .R, or .RData.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Energy Use in Quantum Data Centers: Scaling the Impact of Computer Architecture, Qubit Performance, Size, and Thermal Parameters

As quantum computers increase in size, the total energy used by a quantum data center, including the cooling, will become a greater concern. The cooling requirements of quantum computers, which operate at temperatures near absolute zero, are determined by computing system parameters, including the number and type of physical qubits, the packaging efficiency of the system, and the split between circuits operating at cryogenic temperatures and those operating at room temperature. When combined with thermal system parameters such as cooling efficiency and cryostat heat transfer, the total energy use can be determined using a first-principles energy model. These models show that cooling of quantum computers differs in two fundamental ways from conventional data centers: (1) the energy required for cooling is much greater than the energy required for computation, and (2) the cooling loads are sensitive to the computational architecture. The temperature requirements for different qubit types can change energy requirements by orders of magnitude. Power use and computational power, as quantified by quantum volume, are analytically correlated. Approaches are identified for minimizing energy use in integrated quantum systems relative to computational power. Furthermore, designing a sustainable quantum computer will require both efficient cooling and system design that minimizes cooling requirements.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1987

Raster graphics display library

The Raster Graphics Display Library (RGDL) is a high level subroutine package that give the advanced raster graphics display capabilities needed. The RGDL uses FORTRAN source code routines to build subroutines modular enough to use as stand-alone routines in a black box type of environment. Six examples are presented which will teach the use of RGDL in the fastest, most complete way possible. Routines within the display library that are used to produce raster graphics are presented in alphabetical order, each on a separate page. Each user-callable routine is described by function and calling parameters. All common blocks that are used in the display library are listed and the use of each variable within each common block is discussed. A reference on the include files that are necessary to compile the display library is contained. Each include file and its purpose are listed. The link map for MOVIE.BYU version 6, a general purpose computer graphics display system that uses RGDL software, is also contained.

Grimsrud, Anders↗
DOE OSTI2022

Impacts of engine lubrication oil-derived ash on soot oxidative reactivity on a catalytic gasoline particulate filter

Characterizing soot oxidation kinetics is crucial for understanding how gasoline particulate filters (GPFs) perform both in terms of filtration efficiency and pressure drop. The most common method for measuring soot oxidative reactivity is thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Because TGA is an offline method, it may inaccurately predict how soot oxidizes on a GPF, especially if a catalytic washcoat is present that may enhance oxidation rates through surface interactions as the soot loads on the filter. In this work, a novel in-situ soot oxidative reactivity measurement method was developed. The method involved loading a catalytic GPF under high temperature conditions conducive to soot oxidation and measuring the filtration efficiency of 100 nm particles. A correlation was made between filtration efficiency and loaded soot mass on the filter to allow calculation of the soot oxidation rate. The method was evaluated in experiments using a 2.0 L gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine with three oils of varying additive packages, including an oil with a high zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP) concentration, a non-additive, pure poly-alpha olefin (PAO) oil, and an oil with a high concentration of calcium sulfonate. Calculated specific soot oxidation rates ranged from ~0.06–0.6 min –1 and showed strong dependence on GPF inlet gas temperature and lubrication oil additive type. The results clearly demonstrated a catalytic effect of calcium-containing ash particles. Reactivity of soot produced by the engine running with the high calcium containing lubrication oil was increased. Similarly, the results indicated that the catalytic washcoat on the filter increased soot oxidation rates on-filter, especially at low soot loading. Conversely, the ZDDP oil additive exhibited a reactivity inhibiting effect, resulting in lower soot oxidation rates. Finally, this work represents the first known in-situ soot oxidative reactivity measurements on a GPF and elucidates the effect of lubrication oil additives and catalytic washcoat on oxidation rate.

42 ENGINEERING↗